skyliner wrote:Thanks Omi. Wayno and Ho Really.
So (1)it seemingly comes down to a smaller actual distance from the CBD causing the height restrictions we observe here. (2) Relevant to PAN-OPS,as has been said, Bris CBD is very low in elevation and so gains some bldg height as result. Do these two factors explain the 289 vs 135m difference however. Also, as stated above, Brisbane still seems remarkable clear - 'anomelies'?
VERY interesting exposures about OUR restrictions guys. More 'anomelies'?
ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE
A list is in order, I think.
In Brisbane's favour:
Airport further away from the CBD.
CBD closer to sea level.
No PANS-OPS restrictions over the CBD.
No apparent CBD development plan imposing height restrictions separate from OLS or PANS-OPS restrictions.
Precedent for multiple OLS-breaching buildings having been approved.
There are probably other factors, too, but those are just the few that popped into my head to begin with. Even without knowing for sure the exact data, our airport is closer to the CBD and both are further above sea-level, our city council maintains a particularly strict and highly-specific set of height restrictions with only one building having ever successfully breached them, and our CBD PANS-OPS restrictions are much, much less generous. One factor in isolation does not necessarily explain the 289/135 paradox, but the combination of them all is a very different story.